The very things that you, as a Catholic, would have vehemently condemned if a Protestant had done them, now excuse them [sic] because a pope does them.

. . . you keep silent about the evils JP2 perpetrated in his pontificate.

Is the pedophile/homosexual scandal true? These are things that JP2 perpetuated and or ignored, as the case may be.

I complain about the blatant transgressions against our Catholic tradition and morals. I listed about two dozen of them that occurred in the pontificate of JP2.

JP2 knew of the scandals. He simply chose to ignore them and blame the media for making false accusations.

I’m not going to thwart God’s program by calling a bad guy a good guy.

. . . the poor pontificate of JP2 . . .

He went his own way and ignored much of the tradition before him.

I doubt the veracity of the miracle, and I doubt the veracity of the people doing the investigation. . . . It is blasphemous against heaven to claim that heaven is giving its approval of John Paul’s beatification by such a flimsy “miracle.”

Don’t try to escape the problems with JP2’s beatification by creating a domino effect for the whole Church. JP2 is the anomaly, not the Catholic Church at large.

All I’m concerned about is the attempt to make a saint out of someone who had one of the worst pontificates in regards to doctrine and morals in Catholic history. As regards your recounting of all the suffering John Paul II experienced, so be it. One might think that with all that suffering it would have motivated JP2 to be more obedient to Catholic tradition and be more motivated to clean up the Church. But instead of motivating him to be more obedient to God, he went the other way, allowing pagans to pray to their false gods and allowing homosexuals and pedophiles to run rampant through our Church.

I didn’t see JP2 correct any of his sins. I saw him exonerate bishops and priests who were known to be homosexuals and pedophiles right up to the very end of his pontificate.

My prediction is that JP2 will not be canonized. His beatification will sit on the shelf for centuries, which is not abnormal. Heaven will simply not give its credence to canonizing such a wayward pope as JP2. . . . we are only suffering the punishment heaven has meted out for John Paul II’s idolatry.

The problem was that quite often JP2 didn’t even pay attention to his own encyclicals. He said one thing and did another.

. . . there is also danger with a pope who decides to do things his own way and forsake the Catholic tradition. . . . you need to be just as cautious about what the pope is telling you, especially when that pope (as is the case of JP2) decided he isn’t going to take the papal oath to protect the Church.

The pope is supposed to be a servant of tradition; the 263 popes that went before him; not a neophilist.

I feel sorry for Catholic apologists today. They have two choices: (a) either they defend the abominations of JP2 (e.g., Assisi) or (b) they grin and bear it and try to ignore them as much as possible. I also feel sorry for them because the same critical thinking that led them to see the errors of Protestantism, is now the very critical thinking they must stuff away when they see JP2 and other popes acting in ways that their previous Protestant denominations did not act . . .

We've had bad and heretical popes in the past, so it's not like a bad or heretical pope today would be a surprise to us.

At the least, a sound warning should be given about his teachings; and sainthood should be out of the question.

The Catholic Church is the true Church. That is a fact and I will defend it with my life. But whether the popes and prelates are living up to that ideal is another story altogether. In my opinion, JP2 didn't even come close, and Benedict seems to be falling behind as well.

My allegiance is to Christ. He is the head of the Church, not the pope.

[pure, Protestant "either/or" false dichotomy, eminently worthy of Luther or Calvin. This is one instance of dozens of aspects that Bob has retained from his Protestant days: things that don't fit with the Catholic Mind. For a supposed Catholic apologist to think and write a sentence like this is utterly ridiculous and scandalous]

And since Scripture says that even if an angel from heaven came down and preached another Gospel to me, I am commanded by God not to believe it, otherwise I will be accursed (Gal 1:8-9). If that warning applies to an angel, it certainly applies to a pope, especially one with the doctrinal problems and moral laxities like that of John Paul II.

I find it interesting that, of all the doctrinal and moral aberrations I’ve listed about John Paul II, he chooses only two issues that he thinks he can defend. Catholic apologists routinely sidestep defending John Paul II’s telling pagans to pray to their false gods; the sex scandals; the money scandals; the placement of wayward clerics; altar girls, and all the rest.

[as I've said, I don't respond to most of Bob's rantings because they aren't worthy of any reply; period. But this accusation that I ignore all these things in general is blatantly false. I have defended the Assisi ecumenical conferences on my blog by posting two lengthy explanations of them (one / two). I've defended his kissing the Koran (the huge, unutterably evil scandal in the minds of radical Catholic reactionaries and also some "traditionalists") at great length twice (one / two / three), and later I defended those two posts. I've dealt with JPII's treatment of heterodox dissidents; I treated the issue of altar girls (though not at great length); I have always talked frankly about the sex scandals, with many many links posted.So, nice try Bob, but no cigar. Your tried-and-untrue polemical cliches against actual Catholic apologists like myself don't work with me.]

As we will see below, John Paul II’s personal teaching on Hell is different than what is presented in the Catechism.

It came to the point in John Paul’s view that one didn’t have to profess belief in Jesus Christ, even if he heard and was taught that Jesus Christ is the only savior.

The first thing we see is Mr. Armstrong admitting that John Paul II does, indeed, use universal salvation
language in his teaching.

[I did no such thing. What I did (and it went right over Bob's head because he habitually doesn't grasp Newmanian analogical reasoning, that I use all the time), was argue that [hostile opposing position adopted only for the sake of argument] if John Paul II used "universalistic" language, then by the same token, so does Scripture (many examples given). But we know Scripture doesn't teach universal salvation (agreed premise); therefore, by the same token, John Paul II doesn't either, by similarity to scriptural language and many counter-examples. It's a form of the reductio ad absurdum or "turn the tables" argument. Rather, both teach universal atonement, which is a far different notion (all have sufficient grace to be saved if only they will cooperate with it; but not all are saved). From this reasoning chain Bob amazingly arrives at the "conclusion" that I think JPII used "universal salvation language in his teaching." It's truly amazing and pathetic. But this kind of noncomprehension and hence unwitting misrepresentation of other positions is sadly common with Bob.]

Thus we must assume that Mr. Armstrong is of the opinion that the exegete of Scripture, which John Paul II claimed to be, has no responsibility to make Scripture clearer where Scripture seems to be ambiguous or contradictory.

[It's not at all. It makes perfect sense, interpreted as a harmonious whole. But that is Bob's problem, too. He pulls Scripture from here and there, like fundamentalists do, and so he often comes up with an absurd hermeneutic and exegesis. Now he applies the same deficient method to the statements of popes. It's an inability (for whatever reason: I say it is undue Protestant fundamentalist influence) to understand language both in its context and in the totality of the author's thought: whether concerning popes, or Vatican II, or Holy Scripture itself.]

No one ever used the excuse that they could teach with imprecision and ambiguity because Scripture itself was often confusing.

[of course that was not my argument at all (insofar as Bob is applying this to me, in addition to JPII). It is a cynical conclusion of Bob's, in reply to a mythical caricature of a distortion of my true argument]

when John Paul II uses universalist language in his speeches, Mr. Armstrong exempts him from the responsibility of clearly explicating the truth and claims, rather, that he can use the same ambiguous language that Scripture uses.

[this proves what I just stated in my previous comment: this is how Bob completely misrepresents my argument. He doesn't get it in the first place.]

Which John Paul II we will get depends on which side of the fence Mr. Armstrong is on that particular day.

[because Bob doesn't comprehend my argument in the first place, he is reduced to pitiful accusations that I am waffling, rather than that he is wallowing in clueless noncomprehension in this instance]

. . . am I one of the only ones brave enough to step off the gravy train and point out that the emperor really has no clothes on?

For the record, let’s see whether I’m taking John Paul II “out of context” as Mr. Armstrong has accused me. It is one thing to give John Paul II the benefit of the doubt when he uses the phrase “universal salvation,” but when we combine it with his statements on whether human beings will even go to hell, and his acts and words at the Assisi events; his praise of Luther; his kissing of the Koran and his general view of other religions, one is hard‐pressed to exonerate him.

It is precisely for statements like these that John Paul II has been accused of either tending to deny the reality of hell taught in Catholic tradition, or actually denying it.

It appears that John Paul II is attempting to soften the reality of hell – a common ploy in post‐Vatican II theology . . .

42 comments:

I have more than doubled the size of the original post (as of 7:30 PM EST, 6-1-11) by adding more Sungenis attacks against Blessed Pope John Paul II and a few replies of my own: especially when he misrepresents my arguments.

Since so many seem to be so convinced that JP II was so great and there was such a great outcry to make him a saint immediately ("SANTO SUBITO!), one may well wonder why there wasn't a great outcry before the Beatification to "OPEN THE BOX!"

(By contrast the coffin of the little child Jacinta Marto of Fatima was opened on 2 separate occasions for the viewing of her body before her Beatification.)

Disturbing, but I have noticed this problem with some of the younger followers of what we might call the ultra-trad view. Youth is often a time of extremes and immaturity will show itself. This narrow-minded, myopic ranting simply serves to invite our prayers for those who seemingly cannot keep their balance these days.

I now find that there is a more aggressive arrogance in some young Christian people (by young I mean up to 40 since we are dealing with something which is related to the search for or restoration of orthodoxy but which is also culturally and temporally defined). It makes me ask if humility must now be associated even more with the elderly.

The fact that Dr. Sungenis has consistently and essentially stated what should be obvious, that the post Vatican II head Shepherds have been struck and that the sheep have been terribly scattered does not mean that, he has or ever will become a sedevacantist. I would submit that to state or even suggest otherwise is not the responsible work of a fellow Catholic, much less one making his livelihood as a Catholic apologist.

(Father, I am getting old and I have learned over the years that condescending remarks are not uncommonly used by those in positions of authority to disarm, if not even discredit, those who do not hold such positions.)

I would submit that to state or even suggest otherwise is not the responsible work of a fellow Catholic, much less one making his livelihood as a Catholic apologist.

It's called a "warning": screaming from the rooftops, begging a person to strongly ponder the road they are on. It's an act of love: "don't go down this path: this is where it leads, and you don't want to go there."

That is totally within the purview of what an apologist does, but continually slandering, lying about, bashing popes is certainly not part of that, which is why Robert is no longer functioning as a Catholic apologist, in any reasonable definition of the word.

He is acting far more like Martin Luther did, and as Catholic dissidents do.

I received the following in an email from Dr. Sungenis today and I am hereby passing it on as requested.

R. Sungenis: Thank you for sending this to me James, although I hesitate to get into a tit-for-tat with Mr. Armstrong, mainly because I think his arguments are specious. I will only say the following. On the issue of “Cephas,” Mr. Armstrong missed the point. Regardless of whether he was called Cephas or Meephas, the point at issue is, in his private teaching and actions Peter was being hypocritical and perverting the Gospel. The same can be said of the pope if he teaches wrongly on Catholic issues in private and invites us to critique him, which I did. I used Cephas only because it allowed me to show that Pope Peter also went by a more common name, namely, Cephas. Since Pope Benedict put two names on the cover of his book (ie., Pope Benedict the pope and Joseph Ratzinger the private theologian), the gist of the comparison is made between Peter and Cephas. Be that as it may, Mr. Armstrong’s majoring on the minors is also evident in that he totally avoids the fact that Pope Benedict said we should not be preaching to the Jews. Here we have a glaring inconsistency with Catholic tradition and scripture on the order of John Paul II’s Assisi meeting, but Mr. Armstrong skips all that to dwell on whether Cephas can be an alias or not. This is the typical sweep-under-the-rug type of “apologetics” we have today from our illustrious apologists. This is also followed by how Mr. Armstrong avoids the “let his blood be upon us and our children” issue, where we have Benedict telling us that Matthew’s history is aschew and manages, by appeal to liberal German scholars, avoids the whole patrimony of Catholic teaching on this matter. And I’m wrong for pointing all this out?

As for Mr. Armstrong’s arguments regarding expiation and propitiation, he again missed the point, and I wonder if Mr. Armstrong even read the pope’s book. The point of the analysis was to show that Benedict’s understanding of the Atonement is more German Protestant than it is Catholic. Vicarious penal substitution is Protestant, not Catholic. As regards Mr. Armstrong’s claim that propitiation and expiation are merely synonyms, and backing this view up from Thayer and Smith, is misleading. Granted, a propitiation will result in an expiation, and that is why Thayer and Smith say “relating to an appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory; a means of appeasing or expiating, a propitiation,” since a propitiatory appeasement will result in an expiation of sins. But the propitiation comes first; the expiation follows. They are similar only in the sense that one leads to the other, not because they can be interchanged with no difference in meaning. That is why I included a footnote from Colin Brown in my review, which apparently Mr. Armstrong missed. I suggest Mr. Armstrong read it: “In discussing reconciliation and atonement it has become customary to draw a distinction between propitiation and expiation. In propitiation the action is directed towards God or some other offended person. The underlying purpose is to change God’s attitude from one of wrath to one of good-will and favour. In the case of expiation, on the other hand, the action is directed towards that which has caused the breakdown in the relationship. It is sometimes held that, while God is not personally angry with the sinner, the act of sin has initiated a train of events which can only be broken by some compensatory rite or act of reparation for the offence. In short propitiation is directed towards the offended person, whereas expiation is concerned with nullifying the offensive act.” (Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown, Vol. 3, p. 151). See my book: Not By Bread, Alone, Appendix 2: A Study of Propitiation and Expiation, Queenship Pub. 2000.

Additionally, the quotes from Leo XIII, Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII do nothing for Mr. Armstrong’s argument. I would use the words in the same way, since those encyclicals are not dealing with the finer points of soteriology, and this is precisely why I call Mr. Armstrong’s arguments specious.

As for Mr. Armstrong’s comment that I was “magnanimous and gracious” in praising some of the pope’s book while giving “excoriating criticisms” of the rest, I’m merely following what Pope Benedict himself told me to do, as I pointed out in my opening paragraphs. He said “it is precisely not a book of the Magisterium. It is not a book that I wrote with my authority as Pope….I very intentionally wanted the book to be, not an act of the Magisterium, but an effort to participate in the scholarly discussion,” adding that “everyone is free, then, to contradict me.” So I contradicted him. Wouldn’t you if your pope told you that we are no longer to preach the Gospel to the Jews and that Matthew’s Gospel contains lies? If not, then you need to examine your own Catholic faith, since the Catholic religion I know never taught such things. Mr. Armstrong needs to decide whether he is in this for the truth or just to be a public relations man. He needs to stop being afraid that he will turn into a sedevacantist if he dares disagree with the pope. Idolizing the pope and condoning everything he says only sets people up for a fall. Apologists like Mr. Armstrong give a false impression of what the papacy is, and when the pope doesn’t fulfill that impression, people become disillusioned with both the pope and the papacy. It is much better to be honest and realistic with the papacy and the Vatican at large. That way, when they falter, we are not disillusioned; rather, we just chalk it up to the fact that they are fallible men trying to do their best; men, as Canon 212 directs us, call upon us to give our opinions on the course they are taking us. History shows that grassroots movements among the Catholic faithful have greatly influenced the magisterium, for the magisterium knows that the Holy Spirit also speaks through its people, not just its clerics. God be with you all.

@ James said, " he (Sungenis) has or ever will become a sedevacantist. I would submit that to state or even suggest otherwise is not the responsible work of a fellow Catholic"

Mr. Bob Sungenis and the ultra rad-Trads were the ones whose work were irresponsible of fellow Catholics.

They have chosen to attack relentlessly and undermine JPII, B16, Second Vatican II and the very Authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The same Authority that ratified past Councils from Jerusalem (Book of Acts), Nicea, Chalcedon, Ephesus to Trent and now to Vat2.

They are like protestants who employed the "pick and choose" tactic of which Councils are considered orthodox that fit their false assumptions.

These people (rad-trads) who think they are more catholic than the Pope with Bishops in communion are on their way to funnyfarm.

James cited Sungenis: "....movements among the Catholic faithful have greatly influenced the magisterium, for the magisterium knows that the Holy Spirit also speaks through its people, not just its clerics"

WRONG!

Romans 13:1-2

"Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves."

Comment: This passage should be frightening to those who do not submit to the Authority of the Church. When Christ founded the Church and commissioned its leaders, he granted them the authority necessary to fulfill its mission.

Ephesians 3:4-6

“When you read this you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which WAS NOT MADE KNOWN TO HUMAN BEINGS in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy APOSTLES and PROPHETS by the Spirit.”

The last time I checked the Bible (Matthew 16), Jesus didn't name Robert Sungenis or Bishop Fellay or any looney to be the "Rock" and the holder of the KEYS!

Excellent Jae. Of course there is the sensus fidelium. I know that as well as anyone, as a Newman devotee (he stressed this highly and is known for it). But of course the rabid, relentless, insane endless criticisms of Bob and others of his mind are NOT examples of that. It is rank disobedience.

For Bob, apparently, there are only two choices: trash-talk the pope till Kingdom Come, or papolatry. No in-between.

Jae and Dave, most ironically your blatant and most virulent judgments (of the person himself) and condemnations of Dr. Sungenis make you sound like you have set yourselves up as the Office of the Holy Inquisition, the Magisterium, AND Dr. Sungenis' spiritual director all in one. Quite a feat.

I would point out that it was Bob, not me, who recently stated publicly that I had very possibly lost the Catholic faith altogether. To his credit, he apologized and retracted it, but if we're talking about judgmentalism, there you have it. I have never done that with Bob. I expressly said he is a Catholic, but that he no longer is functioning as a Catholic apologist when he acts this way.

I have warned that he may be on the road to sedevacantism. Time will tell. I hope and pray that he doesn't follow Gerry Matatics' footsteps. But the warning is an act of love: to him and to others: to NOT do this, for the sake of their souls.

But if he actually does do so in one or two years, come back to me then, James, and let me know about what you think of my warnings: if you think they were appropriate and helpful.

I have watched many people go off to extreme rad-tradism. Bob is on that road. I know of what I speak.

I will also go on record now in saying that if Bob Sungenis insists on continuing to "argue" as he has been doing, slandering and trashing the last two popes, that he should either:

1) shut up and cease doing what is now only a pretense of "apologetics"), and take down this garbage along these lines from public view (as he actually did not too many years ago, at my urging and that of others, as has been documented),

or:

2) Be honest with himself and become a liberal Anglican or anti-Catholic Protestant of some sort (or at least outwardly a liberal Catholic dissident, like Curran and Kung), if he can't abide by papal authority any longer.

Continuing on as a supposed Catholic "apologist" at this point will only be the occasion for scandal and endless mockery from anti-Catholic enemies of the Church. They have already shown great delight in Bob's polemics. And it will only get worse.

Of course, out of love for Bob and concern for his soul, I strongly urge him to cease, pray, consider strongly what he is doing, and repent of his errors and sins. If he refuses to do that, then it seems to me that #1 or #2 above are the only sensible options for him to take.

The fact of the matter is, and a fact that many Catholics do not want to face up to, the last 2 popes have slandered and trashed much of the practice of our Catholic faith. It is not anti-Catholic to state this simple fact.

And where do you go to church, James, since you give us a profile with nothing in it? Why should I even take seriously a person who tells us nothing whatever about himself, so that there is no accountability? But it's par for the course, isn't it? Unaccountable,. loose cannon lone rangers, blasting popes. The very notion is insane and laughable to the utmost . . .

Dave, You are a patient man. But are you sure this is a Proverbs 26:5 case? I think it may already be a Proverbs 26:12 matter with Sungenis who seems still trapped in a Fundamentalist straitjacket of private interpretation, incapable of the most basic habit of the Catholic mind: Sentire cum Ecclesia. For his sake, I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

I have not been called as an expert witness in a court of law or otherwise nor do I hold myself out to be one. None of the statements I have made in this thread are of a nature which would require any particular expertise.

You state in reference to myself: "Why should I even take seriously a person who tells us nothing whatever about himself, so that there is no accountability?" That would be a very pertinent question in some settings. In the context of this thread, however, the question is misguided.

What is at issue here is NOT the character or personal history of James Phillips (my real name) including what church (you ask) I go to; nor is it any particular motivation in saying what I have said. What IS at issue is simply the simple truth or falsity of what I say. What I have said is not of any particular technical or complicated nature. People can read it for what it is and make their own judgment.

That said, I will, nevertheless, consent to answering your question and then some. I am a cradle Roman Catholic and as a child I later received the Sacraments of Penance, Holy Communion, and Confirmation. I was later married -- my only marriage -- by a Roman Catholic Priest in a Roman Catholic Church and remain married. I presently go to a Roman Catholic Church (and have for many years) and not one which is schismatic or heretical in any way.

I greatly love my Catholic faith and pray that I would have the grace and courage to die for it if ever called upon to do so.

James Phillips

P.S. Not that I even care, but I note that some of your other contributors in this thread have no profile available for viewing! Tsk, tsk.

I'm not that patient! I think it is mostly a Prov 26:4 case. I am applying Prov 26:5 only on a limited basis (as in my latest analysis of his treatment of Galatians 2), for the purpose of exposure and hopefully to wake up Bob before it is too late for him.

The hubris and tunnel vision involved here is indeed both shocking and astonishing.

The very fact that you and Dr. Sungenis (along with so many other Catholics) have such strong disagreements over these matters under discussion is a manifestation and result of post Vatican II Shepherds who have been struck and sheep who have been scattered.

Would you not agree that the Church to a significant degree is presently in, and has been in for a good number of years, a state of (in the words of Sister Lucia of Fatima) "diabolical disorientation?" Would you not further agree that the post Vatican II pontiffs have not played a significant role in contributing to this situation?

@ James said, "most ironically your blatant and most virulent judgments (of the person himself) and condemnations of Dr. Sungenis make you sound like you have set yourselves up as the Office of the Holy Inquisition".

AND, "diabolical disorientation..Would you not further agree that the post Vatican II pontiffs have not played a significant role in contributing to this situation?"

REPLY: We are just defending the Catholic Church against the relentless attacks from enemies within (and without). Bob Sungenis and Ultra radTrads were the ones on the offensive and when we correct their mistakes then YOU complained to us of virulent judgment? For your info sir, you are the ones committing that grave act together with other RadTrads undermining the very Authority of Pope and Bishops in communion with him (which of course you know is the Magisterium of the Church).

For the secong point were you implying as with other radTrads about Vat2 and Pontiffs as "inferior", "diabolical disorientation"?

Did you ever consider yourself as the one of what you were describing against the Church? Martin Luther said the same exact words against the pope and the Church, don't you know that?

Typical complain and rants from RadTrads which is really the only thing what they are good at.

Again just answer this, James:

If there is a dispute between two abiding Catholic christians, WHO has the Authority to settle dispute?

I am sorry (no I’m not actually,) but the Rad-Trad analysis of the Western Faith crisis is awful.

Let us consider, for a moment their claim the rot set in directly because of the second Vatican Council and the Pauline rite, plus the action of the subsequent Popes. OK, let’s roll with that.

The Second Vatican council was a full ecumenical council with the Bishops of the world represented. The proclamations of the Council were binding on the ENTIRE WORLD. Got that? The whole world. The Pauline rite (with a few exceptions) was shipped out world wide. It is, for the most part, the rite of Africa and South East Asia. (I have seen the Pauline rite used as standard in both the Philippines and Indonesia, as examples.)

Right… given that Vatican II and the policies of the Pope following it have been a MAJOR CAUSE of collapse of Catholic belief and practice then we would see the resultant collapse post VCII and it would be world wide.

Neither of which are true.

Taking the latter first, it is BOOM time for Catholics (and Christians of all shakes) in Africa, South America and South East Asia. Indonesia, for example, where my wife hails from is having a major revival! Not reported by the West mind and ignored by Western Christians who prefer to think the Country is hotbed of Islamic led persecution which it isn’t but what the heck… Indonesia has on the biggest and quietest revivals in recent history. It’s really odd how it is being ignored even by the Christians here. But the Islam majority are very worried!

Anyway, if the Pauline rite was the result of the fall of Catholicism then we would expect to see the falling away of Catholics EVERYWHERE the Pauline rite was used. Not so. Ditto the all the countries that adopted VCII - which is, er, all of them. We would see WORLDWIDE apostacy!!! But we don’t. Indeed, the rot exists in the Western Church and the Western Church ONLY!! Which, while a considerable chunk of the Church is not even the majority, all tallied.

Even the timing is wrong. In the UK, belief in God started falling, you know when…? 1963 When ‘the pill’ was introduced. Not country in the world fell so fast or so completely to the sexual revolution than the UK. It was someone flicked a switch. The moment the switch was flicked can be traded directly back to the arrival of the contraceptive pill and the Beatles. If the rot started as a result of VCII – and NOT due to other factors - would expect falling away to start in 1970 or so. As it was, things were starting to fail in the West WHILE the council was taking place.

It was the sexual revolution that threw the West and nothing to do with Vatican II et al. Indeed, while we cannot see a correlation between the use of the ‘new’ Mass and Church attendance, we can see an ABSOLUTE correlation between the acceptance of the sexual revolution – which I regard as nothing more than the worship of Baal – and a country abandoning God. The East has manifestly NOT bought into the free sex mantra and so Christianity, Catholicism especially, continues to blossom and grow. More than ever actually and countries that were once considered closed to Catholicism suddenly have revival on their hands!

Indeed, if we are to judge our Popes by their evangelistic fruits then the post-VCII Popes while I think they CAN be blamed for getting the assault on the West wrong (Pope JP, much as I loved him, did let the West fall) they can be massively congratulated on their fruits from Africa, Asia and South East Asia.

So the ‘argument’ the Rad-Trads uses that “Everything went to rot when we brought the Mass into the vernacular and had the Freemasons dictate Vatican II to us” can be disproven by their own terms! Everything did not go to rot. Things went wrong in the *West* but the West is not the world! I learnt that the day I walked in on Filipinos! The sexual revolution, however, that ate up the West, had started even before the Bishops met and was well underway before they closed up!

So, if we take the whole world into account, are our recent Popes not worth a bit of congratulating on their WORLD WIDE success? (Naw, ‘cause it’s the Latin, see? No Latin, no Church., Stands to reason…)

Which Matatics and Sugenis et al are all operating on a very small mind set indeed which does not see the Catholic Church as Catholic but only as Western.

@Jedinovice...excellent points brother. These radtrads are really barking on the wrong tree that they are just so obsessed with their own intellectual supremacy of Sacred Tradition that they become the very thing they abhor - without them realizing.

In orther words, they think (like Luther and Calvin did) they are the real deal having the charism of the Holy Spirit and not the Living Authority of the Church.

Sad indeed for catholics, well in every ratified Councils of the Church in her entire 2,000 years of history there will be always be dissidents from within and without.

The real name is Laurence, by the way. Jedinovice is just my Google Moniker.

Oddly enough, something else came to mind as I was driving in this morning. A few facts first, though, before I continue. (I have found getting involved with South East Asia a real eye opener and helps me see things from a Global perspective which a Pope must do. Certain things become clearer.)

1) People have no idea just how bad things are in the UK now. Anti-Christian sentiment is very strong and Christians are insulted, harassed and ridiculed on a constant basis. It is far worse than in the US by far. Arrests are taking place and legislation is being passed on a continual basis that is making employing a Christian a dangerous business. Christianity is being systematically closed down here. As a result of a pernicious media the British largely assume that religion is a force for evil and the major cause of war in the world. (Yeah, after the 20th Century of all things but you try telling the Brits!! They will listen to the fact. Our media and 'education' system have worked wonders.) I seriously see the day when Christians are sectioned for treatment for their delusions.

2) A word about Indonesia. People assume the country is a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism. This is the popular myth but is far from true. There are a few isolated areas of total loons, but they are despised by the general public. Indeed, not only is Indonesia undergoing a major revival – enough that the Islamic leadership are getting worried, but relations between the different religions are very good, very peaceful. Unlike the UK, which pretends to be multi-cultural but is really an atheistic state using 'religious tolerance' to close down Christianity, Indonesia really *is* multi-cultural in the sense of not denying it's own religion but giving space to the other faiths. In Indonesia ALL the religious feasts are celebrated with time off. So you only get two weeks leave but it is supplemented by religious holidays every month!

3) However, Indonesia is not liberal. While the different faiths co-operate together as much as possible, they retain their separate identities. Indeed, a favourite past time of locals is heated religious debate! Indonesians, the men especially, love to intellectually battle with each other for possible conversion – Muslim to Christian, Christian to Muslim. (Sometimes things get broken!) So the different religions are not regarded as 'the same things.' Respect does not equate to equal in truth.

My wife, Catholic from birth, knew NOTHING of religious persecution until she came to the UK. All the tales of Muslims hacking people's heads off which is the popular view of Indonesia was lost on her. Her knowledge of ALL the associated religions in Indonesia was of mutual respect. She came to the UK and was reduced to tears by her co-workers turning on her as one when she let it slip she was Catholic. I had warned her what would happen when Brits found out she had any kind of religious belief. Management then had to be called in to stop the harassment – after a week of non-stop intimidation. (As a side note, I advised a friend who was having difficulty getting work that stating he was a Christian on his resume was stopping him getting interviews. He saw my point.)

This is necessary background for something that helped paint Assisi for me only yesterday.

My wife has located the wonders of the internet and can now watch Indonesian TV via the web! It isn't great TV but it is better than the muck in the UK. (If you are getting the impression I am sick of the UK, you have it right!) Anyway, yesterday she was showing me a example of a common feature of Indonesia... Protests outside Government buildings. Like all democratic societies, protests are common. (Corruption is a problem in Indonesia though it is improving.) However, unlike the secularised West where it is trade unions and political groups that protest, in Indonesia is the RELIGIONS that protest. They are the one that go on sit down protests.

So, you know what happens. ALL the major religions – Muslim, Catholic, Protestant(1), Buddhist and Hindu get together and pray! Just like in Assisi! Do they pray to the same God in the same way? No. They gather together to greet each other and then separate, Catholics in one section of the ground, Hindus in another, Muslims in another and they pray separately in their own way but they are ALL visible to the authorities.

In so doing they send the following message:

1) We do not acknowledge each faith as having the 'truth' as we perceive it. So we do not pray as one in the same way to the same God.2) We do, however, believe in the same principles of peaceful co-existence, respect for God and for each other and we all believe in PEACEFUL protest through prayer.3) We all believe in the same issue – whatever the protest is – and we come together to show our opposition to XYZ.

Now, this would be a powerful moment in the UK if the different religions would come together in, say Hyde Park, and protest, say, the UK's abortion record. But, alas, it will never happen here. There is insufficient critical mass of believers and relations between the religions are more strained than in Indonesia. And, also, the media would never report it and if they did they would somehow make a peaceful protest seem like a declaration of war from the Christians on the Government. The media in Indonesia does not have the Richard Dawkins hate complex that the UK has.

Now, when the protest of the day ends in Indonesia and the prayer beads put away, do they different religions then slap each other on the back and say "See! We all believe the same thing really"? No. They break bread together and the Catholics try and convert the Muslims and vice versa! They share common ground where they can but defend their positions with vigour! Is this compromise? No. It is simple recognition of what they can do together but go no further.

The real name is Laurence, by the way. Jedinovice is just my Google Moniker.

Oddly enough, something else came to mind as I was driving in this morning. A few facts first, though, before I continue. (I have found getting involved with South East Asia a real eye opener and helps me see things from a Global perspective which a Pope must do. Certain things become clearer.)

1) People have no idea just how bad things are in the UK now. Anti-Christian sentiment is very strong and Christians are insulted, harassed and ridiculed on a constant basis. It is far worse than in the US by far. Arrests are taking place and legislation is being passed on a continual basis that is making employing a Christian a dangerous business. Christianity is being systematically closed down here. As a result of a pernicious media the British largely assume that religion is a force for evil and the major cause of war in the world. (Yeah, after the 20th Century of all things but you try telling the Brits!! They will listen to the fact. Our media and 'education' system have worked wonders.) I seriously see the day when Christians are sectioned for treatment for their delusions.

2) A word about Indonesia. People assume the country is a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism. This is the popular myth but is far from true. There are a few isolated areas of total loons, but they are despised by the general public. Indeed, not only is Indonesia undergoing a major revival – enough that the Islamic leadership are getting worried, but relations between the different religions are very good, very peaceful. Unlike the UK, which pretends to be multi-cultural but is really an atheistic state using 'religious tolerance' to close down Christianity, Indonesia really *is* multi-cultural in the sense of not denying it's own religion but giving space to the other faiths. In Indonesia ALL the religious feasts are celebrated with time off. So you only get two weeks leave but it is supplemented by religious holidays every month!

3) However, Indonesia is not liberal. While the different faiths co-operate together as much as possible, they retain their separate identities. Indeed, a favourite past time of locals is heated religious debate! Indonesians, the men especially, love to intellectually battle with each other for possible conversion – Muslim to Christian, Christian to Muslim. (Sometimes things get broken!) So the different religions are not regarded as 'the same things.' Respect does not equate to equal in truth.

My wife, Catholic from birth, knew NOTHING of religious persecution until she came to the UK. All the tales of Muslims hacking people's heads off which is the popular view of Indonesia was lost on her. Her knowledge of ALL the associated religions in Indonesia was of mutual respect. She came to the UK and was reduced to tears by her co-workers turning on her as one when she let it slip she was Catholic. I had warned her what would happen when Brits found out she had any kind of religious belief. Management then had to be called in to stop the harassment – after a week of non-stop intimidation. (As a side note, I advised a friend who was having difficulty getting work that stating he was a Christian on his resume was stopping him getting interviews. He saw my point.)

This is necessary background for something that helped paint Assisi for me only yesterday.

My wife has located the wonders of the internet and can now watch Indonesian TV via the web! It isn't great TV but it is better than the muck in the UK. (If you are getting the impression I am sick of the UK, you have it right!) Anyway, yesterday she was showing me a example of a common feature of Indonesia... Protests outside Government buildings. Like all democratic societies, protests are common. (Corruption is a problem in Indonesia though it is improving.) However, unlike the secularised West where it is trade unions and political groups that protest, in Indonesia is the RELIGIONS that protest. They are the one that go on sit down protests.

So, you know what happens. ALL the major religions – Muslim, Catholic, Protestant(1), Buddhist and Hindu get together and pray! Just like in Assisi! Do they pray to the same God in the same way? No. They gather together to greet each other and then separate, Catholics in one section of the ground, Hindus in another, Muslims in another and they pray separately in their own way but they are ALL visible to the authorities.

In so doing they send the following message:

1) We do not acknowledge each faith as having the 'truth' as we perceive it. So we do not pray as one in the same way to the same God.2) We do, however, believe in the same principles of peaceful co-existence, respect for God and for each other and we all believe in PEACEFUL protest through prayer.3) We all believe in the same issue – whatever the protest is – and we come together to show our opposition to XYZ.

Now, this would be a powerful moment in the UK if the different religions would come together in, say Hyde Park, and protest, say, the UK's abortion record. But, alas, it will never happen here. There is insufficient critical mass of believers and relations between the religions are more strained than in Indonesia. And, also, the media would never report it and if they did they would somehow make a peaceful protest seem like a declaration of war from the Christians on the Government. The media in Indonesia does not have the Richard Dawkins hate complex that the UK has.

Now, when the protest of the day ends in Indonesia and the prayer beads put away, do they different religions then slap each other on the back and say "See! We all believe the same thing really"? No. They break bread together and the Catholics try and convert the Muslims and vice versa! They share common ground where they can but defend their positions with vigour! Is this compromise? No. It is simple recognition of what they can do together but go no further.

Anyway, consider Assisi... Did the different religions pray AS ONE in all mixed together to the same 'Deity?' Nope. They did as they do in Indonesia. They separated and prayed in their own form.

Now, Assisi was a prayer for PEACE! Remember, Pope John Paul II was Polish! He had lived through both the second world war and the Cold War. He was a Cold War Pope! Peace was deep on his heart. So he gathered the different religions together do what religions do...

PRAY!

He was sending an advert to the world – a message! That message was the same as in Indonesia. Religion is not causing your wars. We come together and we PRAY. We do not slit each others throats. (Bear in mind that *is* the popular narrative here!) The Pope was being very clever. He was laying down a challenge to the world, and those in religious conflicts especially... if we can come together as pray peacefully, why do you war in the name of your religion? Furthermore, he was showing the disbelieving world that religion is NOT a source of conflict because all the religions COULD all be gathered together PEACEFULLY to pray for PEACE!

It was a massive statement. It is actually (insofar as I am allowed to speak of religion at all in the UK which is virtually nil) a counter to the Brits who tell me, "Goes to show that religion is the cause of all the wars in the world."

As I say, you have little clue how bad things are here now. After much prayer and discernment – I have a spiritual director – I am leaving for Indonesia in a few months. The UK is convinced it will be a better, happier place when it irradiates religion completely. I know how that ends! So forgive me if I have a downer on the UK. God has graced me for South East Asia and not the UK or Europe. So I cannot handle it here anymore! My spiritual director is aware of that!

Anyway, Assisi was a massive POLITICAL statement that slapped the secularists in the face. Indeed, I would argue that Pope Benedict could do a lot worse than arrange another Assisi to show the likes of the UK that belief in God tends to mean peace. Though it would be pointless in regards to the UK as it would simply not be reported here.

One thing I really have against Pope JPII, though I loved the man, was that he was so focused on the East that he forgot the West, Europe especially. He seemed to assume the West was 'safe.' So he made really bad appointments at multiple levels and never engaged secularism, preferring to focus on Communism, liberation theology and winning the Orthodox over. You can see his Polish past setting his focus can't you?! So while JPII was a global Pope – very much so – he had a Polish focus. He was anti-Communist and pro-Orthodox and looking to the East. Now Pope Benedict 'gets it.' Alas, I fear he has arrived too late and Europe is going to collapse before it re-learns. But Benedict, God bless him, may be the voice who warned the Europeans so they will remember who foretold "The twilight of (their) civilisation" and turn to the one who foresaw. Maybe.

But, anyway, as I watched one of these inter-religious protests in Indonesia I saw Assisi. If you stop assuming the world equals the West and that a Pope has to consider the Middle East and it's conflicts, Latin America, South East Asia and China with it's underground Church... then things that seem puzzling to the West make sense. South East Asia has nothing but respect and admiration for Pope JPII.

(1) Annoyingly, in South East Asia the Catholics are known as Catholics and the Protestants are Christian. So you can be asked, "Are you Catholic or Christian?" They do not mean that Catholics are not Christian but the label Protestant is unknown out there. I admit I find it a bit irritating.)

Also check out avraidire.com,it has articles in English by one of the same authors of antisharia,articles in favor of Christianity.The French articles you can translate with Google translate by copying and pasting:

Erm, yes, well I have had a quick look at said website and had my theory that Rad-Trads are loons confirmed. Nice to see the freemasons mentioned. No Rad-Trad website is complete without the freemasons. Now, can I find the Knights Templar in there as well...?

I recommend every Catholic go onto this website and see the fruits of Rad-Tradism! They may then may make an informed choice as to whether they wish to emulate this, er, mode of operation.

I particularly liked this bit in "About our Apostolate:"

---Sadly, not every Catholic possesses the knowledge of his religion or the courage of his convictions. Some are known to be timid about exposing such evils as Zionism, Masonry, Americanism, democracy, Vatican II, the holocaust scam, the war on terror hoax, the suppression and falsification of Our Lady of Fatima’s Third Secret, the dangers of the Ecclesia Dei/Indult Mass movement, the cult of sedevacantism ("cult" here referring not to the sedevacantist position per se' but to those who espouse that particular conviction in public conveying the false impression that it is a dogmatic truth rather than a mere personal opinion and nothing more), the rise of American totalitarianism, the coming Universal Satanic Republic – issues thought to be “too hot to handle” and “too controversial.”

---

Nice.

This bit is neat too...

---

Some are shy about calling the New Mass a sacrilege, which it certainly is. Or saying that the post-Vatican II popes have committed unspeakable acts of betrayal against Christ, which they certainly have. While some are shy about these things, we are not.

---

Quite. If this is 'balance' ... well, obviously in order to restore balance to Communism one must be a Fascist. I see...

Yeah, go and see what kind of 'Catholic' the likes of James sees as balanced.

--- Marcus Grodi (director of The Coming Home Network, and host of the EWTN television show: The Journey Home)

I highly recommend his work, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, which I find to be thoroughly orthodox, well-written, and effective for the purpose of making Catholic truth more understandable and accessible to the public at large.

God bless you in your indefatigable labors on behalf of the Faith! Only God knows how many lives your efforts have touched with the truth. . . . God bless you and give you joy and strength in persevering in your important ministry.

There is someone out there who says what I have to say much better than I ever could -- the smartest Catholic apologist I know of -- Dave Armstrong.

--- Amy Welborn (Catholic author and blogmaster)

I love your books, love your site, love everything you do. God bless you in your work. I'm very grateful for all you've done, and for all you make available. If someone pitches a hard question at me, I go first to your site. Then I send the questioner directly to the page that best answers the question. I know it's going to be on your site.

--- Mike Aquilina (Catholic apologist and author of several books)

People regularly tell me how much they appreciate your work. This new book sounds very useful. Your website is incredible and I recommend it regularly to new Catholics.

--- Al Kresta (Host of Kresta in the Afternoon [EWTN], author of Why Do Catholics Genuflect? and other books)

Dave Armstrong's book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism was one of the first Catholic apologetics books that I read when I was exploring Catholicism. Ever since then, I have continued to appreciate how he articulates the Catholic Faith through his blog and books. I still visit his site when I need a great quote or clarification regarding anything . . . Dave is one of the best cyber-apologists out there.--- Dr. Taylor Marshall (apologist and author of The Crucified Rabbi)

I love how Dave makes so much use of the Scriptures in his arguments, showing that the Bible is fully compatible with Catholicism, even more plausibly so than it is with Protestantism.. . . Dave is the hardest working Catholic apologist I know. He is an inspiration to me.

--- Devin Rose (apologist and author of The Protestant's Dilemma, 28 May 2012 and 30 Aug. 2013)Dave Armstrong['s] website is an amazing treasure trove representing hours–yea a lifetime of material gathered to defend Catholic doctrine. Over the years Dave has gathered the evidence for Catholic teaching from just about every source imaginable. He has the strength not only to understand the Catholic faith, but to understand the subtleties and arguments of his Protestant opponents.--- Fr. Dwight Longenecker (author and prominent blogmaster, 6-29-12)

You are a very friendly adversary who really does try to do all things with gentleness and respect. For this I praise God.--- Nathan Rinne (Lutheran apologist [LC-MS] )

You are one of the most thoughtful and careful apologists out there.

Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field. [1-7-14]

--- Dr. Edwin W. Tait (Anglican Church historian)

Dave Armstrong writes me really nice letters when I ask questions. . . . Really, his notes to me are always first class and very respectful and helpful. . . . Dave Armstrong has continued to answer my questions in respectful and helpful ways. I thank the Lord for him.

--- The late Michael Spencer (evangelical Protestant), aka "The Internet Monk", on the Boar's Head Tavern site, 27 and 29 September 2007

Dave Armstrong is a former Protestant Catholic who is in fact blessedly free of the kind of "any enemy of Protestantism is a friend of mine" coalition-building . . . he's pro-Catholic (naturally) without being anti-Protestant (or anti-Orthodox, for that matter).

---"CPA": Lutheran professor of history [seehis site]: unsolicited remarks of 12 July 2005

I am reading your stuff since I think it is the most thorough and perhaps the best defense of Catholicism out there . . . Dave has been nothing but respectful and kind to me. He has shown me great respect despite knowing full well that I disagree with him on the essential issues.

Dave has been a full-time apologist for years. He’s done much good for thousands of people.

You have a lot of good things to say, and you're industrious. Your content often is great. You've done yeoman work over the decades, and many more people [should] profit from your writing. They need what you have to say.--- Karl Keating (founder and director of Catholic Answers, the largest Catholic apologetics organization in the world; 5 Sep. 2013 and 1 Jan. 2015)

Whether one agrees with Dave's take on everything or not, everyone should take it quite seriously, because he presents his arguments formidably.

I like the way you present your stuff Dave ... 99% of the time.--- Protestant Dave Scott, 4-22-14 on my personal Facebook page.

Who is this Dave Armstrong? What is he really like? Well, he is affable, gentle, sweet, easily pleased, very appreciative, and affectionate . . . I was totally unprepared for the real guy. He's a teddy bear, cuddly and sweet. Doesn't interrupt, sits quietly and respectfully as his wife and/or another woman speaks at length. Doesn't dominate the conversation. Just pleasantly, cheerfully enjoys whatever is going on about him at the moment and lovingly affirms those in his presence. Most of the time he has a relaxed, sweet smile.

--- Becky Mayhew (Catholic), 9 May 2009, on the Coming Home Network Forum, after meeting me in person.

Every so often, I recommend great apostolates, websites, etc. And I am very careful to recommend only the very best that are entirely Catholic and in union with the Church. Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site is one of those. It is a veritable treasure chest of information. Dave is thorough in his research, relentlessly orthodox, and very easy to read.

Discussions with you are always a pleasure, agreeing or disagreeing; that is a rarity these days.

--- David Hemlock (Eastern Orthodox Christian), 4 November 2014.

What I've appreciated, Dave, is that you can both dish out and take argumentative points without taking things personally. Very few people can do that on the Internet. I appreciate hard-hitting debate that isn't taken personally.

--- Dr. Lydia McGrew (Anglican), 12 November 2014.

Dave Armstrong is a friend of mine with whom I've had many discussions. He is a prolific Catholic writer and apologist. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really believes, Dave is a good choice. Dave and I have our disagreements, but I'll put my arm around him and consider him a brother. There is too much dishonesty among all sides in stating what the "other side" believes. I'll respect someone who states fairly what the other believes.

Recommended Catholic Apologetics Links and Icons

Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic

Orthodoxy & Citation Permission

To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15).

All material contained herein is written by Dave Armstrong (all rights reserved) unless otherwise noted. Please retain full copyright, URL, and author information when downloading and/or forwarding this material to others. This information is intended for educational, spiritual enrichment, recreational, non-profitpurposes only, and is not to be exchanged for monetary compensation under any circumstances (Exodus 20:15-16).